I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “public schools”

There are an infinite number of reasons why, if you have children in public schools, you should immediately remove them from that destructive environment and place them either in a private school setting or home school them. And even if you don’t have children in public schools, or don’t have children at all – you still need to fight the public school system’s tyrannical, imperial, bureaucratic and liberal hold it has on America’s youth. Why?

Two young Washington State girls were forced to endure five hours of agonizing hell outside under the sun for their school field day. The result? Each came home very badly sunburned because they – by state law – were prohibited from applying sun screen without a doctor’s note giving them permission to do so. Pure, liberal-based, hyperbolic overreaction which continues to infiltrate the public education system and take control over every single aspect of a child’s life during the hours they are in attendance at any given public school.

When will parents have the courage to stand up and challenge these heartless, thoughtless, unsympathetic thugs and rogues who have long ago usurped power, stolen it away from parents and community, and continue to wield that power to make incredibly devastating, irrational and permanently disfiguring decisions that only benefit them, but do absolutely nothing to educate and to prepare children for their future when they become adults?

More children will continue to suffer needlessly at the hands of public schools so long as they are run by government and not the parents and community at large. It is entirely inappropriate and un-American for parents not to have more of a direct say, more of a direct control and influence with regards to their own children. In other words – more government involvement is not the solution to a child’s well-rounded education, more government is the problem to a child’s well-rounded education.

Liberalism is also guilty of crimes against school children. What conservative, or conservative idealism, provides for such nonsensical, and criminal, rules and stipulations as preventing a child from applying sunscreen to their skin to prevent being burned? It is liberalism, and liberal ideology, that is the root of this ever-growing, and ever-growing out of control, problem. Kids can’t play dodge-ball or tag, or anything of a competitive nature in public schools any longer for fear of hurting the feelings of other children who might lose.

Liberalism has outlawed the entire concept of winning altogether over the issue of “hurt feelings”. And it is liberalism which – although it would seek to allow public schools to take your child to an abortion clinic to have an abortion against your will and without your knowledge; would seek to provide your children with condoms so they might engage is “safe sex” rather than abstain from sex; would teach your children that America was founded by, and continues to be, a hateful, racist, bigoted, misogynist nation – that same liberalism would prevent your children from taking an aspirin to reduce or end pain; to apply sunscreen protection to their skin to prevent being burnt alive by the intense heat of the sun; or otherwise have a zero tolerance policy towards anything they deem to be a threat to their overall control and manipulation over the students, without exception, regardless of reason or consequence to the students affected.

Don’t misunderstand – public schools are noble and worthy institutions, and they ought to persevere. However, so long as they are being run, and controlled by, outside influences with ignoble agendas; so long as parents have little or no say, or knowledge about what or how their children are being taught; so long as children are being intentionally inundated with harmful misinformation, that education – that purposeful lack of a quality education – will only prepare them for a life of indentured servitude, enslavement and complete dependence to government and government agencies.

The real reason why sunscreen is needlessly and heedlessly banned from public schools, like so much else, is not to protect your children from harm, but to protect the control public schools want, and need to have, over your children. The sunscreen ban is a smokescreen. In other words – public schools need to have complete dominance over your children without you influencing them. The only way for schools to do that is to enact inane, head-scratching policies like the banning of aspirin and sunscreen, and the banning of tag and competitive sports, and enacting a zero-tolerance policy that makes absolutely no sense – and that also now includes, and extends to, the feeding of your children in public schools, all of which is engineered and designed to take more control over your children away from you and place that responsibility upon the public school system. Public schools do not want you to have any say in how your children are educated, or what goes in public schools. In increments, and over decades, the public school system has managed to become your children’s real parents, mostly due to our own apathy.

Until we become less apathetic, and more hostile (in a constructive manner) with regards to how our children are taught and educated in public schools, and what they are taught, more and more children will continue to be burned (pun intended) by those very public schools. Either take back control of your public schools, or continue to watch the overall decline of your children’s education and, thus, their lives as they move into adulthood. Which will it be? And remember – your decision affects not only your children, but America at large, all of us. Because children really are the future.

What future will America have, what future does America have, if its youth continues to be brainwashed and manipulated by a liberal-based agenda that ever seeks to dummy down their education rather than build them up and strengthen them, their perspectives, and prepare them for adulthood? How can any child grow up to be independent when all they know is complete dependence and reliance on government to take care of them?

Watch this video and then decide on the state of public education and the “value”, the necessity of public schools over private or home schooling.

Not a day goes by, it seems, when some public school somewhere does something so incredibly stupid, and gets away with it. How many more reasons do we need before we start to demand more accountability for the public schools we pay for?

Sometimes art is not art. And sometimes art for the sake of art is simply pornography in disguise. That is the case with one piece of, shall we say “art”, drawn by one public school student and displayed on her school wall. Only there is no disguising the message of, or behind, this mural. Its vivid starkness glares down at us, as we look up at it. Its candid gratuitousness mocks our everyday norms and standards, belittles and ridicules us in horrible, torturous ways, and makes us as uncomfortable as a bug caught in a glass of formaldehyde. How can we possibly get a wrong impression of what this “art” represents?

But sometimes, some people take things too far. Sometimes an artist comes along and interjects a message so controversial, so obscene, so blatantly pornographic and devoid of any value, artistic or otherwise, the people are obliged to throw up their hands in utter and absolute disgust and vomit in rage. That has happened in Rhode Island, and with just and moral cause.

Liz Bierendy, a 17-year-old artist who attends Pilgrim High School in Warwick, R.I., has had to defend her artistic vision for a mural to cover a wall of the high school.

“Defend” is putting it mildly. What this child has done to her school, her community, her state has set real art back hundreds of years. What is worse is that, although her school originally covered up the mural, (the controversial part anyway) it has since been uncovered and Liz has been allowed to finish it as she saw fit. This final product, this vision of hers has cast a dark shadow over her school and until the good people of Rhode Island stand up and demand it be permanently trashed, anyone viewing it will get extraordinarily peculiar ideas in their heads, foreign ideas, outdated and antiquated ideas of Rhode Island and which the good people of Rhode Island thought they had finally put behind them once and for all. The past is coming back to haunt Rhode Islanders, and it is all the fault of one very deranged girl who should have had sense enough to know how much damage her “art’ would cause. Where were this child’s parents? View this “art” for yourself and see what “choice” words you might have for her parents.

What are any parents supposed to do, now that this mural is on full display for their impressionable children to see as they walk down the school hall from one class to the next? These students will see this “art” every day, and somehow have to live with themselves. How are parents supposed to explain to their children the meaning behind the mural without throwing up? How do teachers, administrators and staff explain why this “art” was allowed to remain, knowing that students will be compelled to look at it, talk about it – and perhaps even admire it, and copy it?

That is the worst part. Students who look at this “art” might just copy it. Rhode Island has worked hard, for decades, to instill certain values in their students, and to remove other, old-fashioned values that are relics of America’s historical past. If only Liz had defecated on a Bible or a picture of the Pope in protest of the priest pedophile scandal, or over the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception and birth control and submitted that as art. Liz would have been a national hero and icon. She didn’t do that. She took a more extreme measure that has the “art” world turned upside down. Recover? Good luck!

Judge for yourself, but be warned – it’s not for the squeamish.

What kind of message does this instill in our children? This repulsive, inhumane drawing depicts the life of a boy as he grows into a man, eventually marrying a woman and having a child. (Both wife and child are at his side in the last image) Can you understand, now, why this mural is so controversial in the State of Rhode Island? Can you understand, now, why school officials originally wanted it removed? Can you see the controversy staring down at you?

How “safe” are your children, really, once they are under the watchful eye and influence of the public education system? Are you even aware the public school you send your children to is working behind closed doors, and with extreme, radical left-wing and liberal organizations, to draw up curriculum which encourages your children, and their peers, to engage in sex with one another?

Every public school in America that is teaching children “safe sex” is engaged in a vicious canard with long-lasting repercussions including emotional and psychological damage, the scars of which never heal. Once you relinquish your virginity, that’s it. Whatever the reason, public education cannot wait for your children to “do it”. They are eager and salivating for the opportunity to indoctrinate your children in sexual activity with verbal descriptions and “artistic” imagery and illustrations, provide them with every reason why abstaining is abnormal and unrealistic, and even accommodate them with “protection” such as condoms and birth control. And they are damned incensed when conservatives attempt to interfere.

Planned Parenthood Director of Education Elokin CaPese told WMC-TV that the bill is broad and unrealistic. Its prohibition of “gateway sexual activity” demonstrations would include health education models, she said.

Such as?

…Holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex. Planned Parenthood said that allowing state government to define local sex education curriculum could backfire.

But somehow allowing Planned Parenthood to “define local sex education curriculum” hits it out of the ballpark? Somehow kids who engage in sex, however “safe”, are more healthy, are less at risk of becoming pregnant, or getting VD, STD”s or AIDS than kids who abstain from sex? Planned Parenthood is worried that this bill will “backfire” because it might lead to kids not being able to hold hands in school?

Here is what the bill states:

(1) Exclusively and emphatically promote sexual risk avoidance through abstinence, regardless of a student’s current or prior sexual experience; (2) Encourage sexual health by helping students understand how sexual activity affects the whole person including the physical, social, emotional, psychological, economic and educational consequences of non-marital sexual activity; (3) Provide factually and medically-accurate information; (4) Encourage students to communicate with a parent, guardian, or other trusted adult about sex or other risk behaviors; (5) Address the benefits of raising children within the context of a marital relationship and the unique challenges that single teen parents encounter in relation to educational, psychological, physical, social, legal, and financial factors; (6) Discuss the interrelationship between teen sexual activity and exposure to other risk behaviors such as smoking, underage drinking, drug use, criminal activity, dating violence, and sexual aggression; and (7) Educate students on the age of consent, puberty, pregnancy, childbirth, sexually transmitted diseases, and the financial and emotional responsibility of raising a child.

Where in the hell does it say anything about not holding hands, or punishing students who do? And even if a public school prohibited its students from holding hands while in school, or on school property, during school hours, there is nothing unconstitutional about that. It might be, to a degree, going overboard. On the other hand, it is hardly as offensive as encouraging kids to “go all the way” with one another, which is what so-called “safe sex” education promotes, and what teachers encourage as they instruct their students in this type of curriculum.

Planned Parenthood, of course, is not the only organization that supports raping children in this manner. The Democrat Party supports this form of rape, as do all liberal organizations. This is one of the myriad differences between conservatives, who support abstinence-only education and liberals. What exactly is the benefit of intentionally putting children in harms way by promoting such risky, dangerous and irrational behavior? To say liberals just want kids to be “safe” when/if they do engage in sex is another canard. Liberals want kids to engage in sex at such a young age, and they want kids to be as “prepared” as possible for when that times comes. If they didn’t, they would support “abstinence-only”. That we all know some teenagers will engage in sex is still no reason to encourage all teens to engage in it – and teaching “safe sex” education, and instilling them with ideas of “normalcy” and making the experience as “comfortable” for them as possible only entices young teens with impressionable minds to let down their guard and give into temptations they are better off waiting to indulge in.

Conversely, abstinence-only teaches kids that sex, while it is a normal part of the human experience with ample rewards, holds risks and consequences for those who engage in it at young ages, who do it not out of an actual love for one another, but out of a lust caused by an imbalance in their hormones. (And it is appropriate to refer to this type of behavior as lust rather than love because their hormones are “raging” and puberty is sending all kinds of messages to their brains that kids cannot fully process or understand.) It is imperative teachers not betray the teacher/student confidence and relationship by instructing kids that it is “normal” for them to partake in sex.

Most kids do abstain from sex during their teens. If a majority of kids can find within themselves the willpower and the courage to remain virgins through high school and even college – why do we want Planned Parenthood trying to undermine and exploit, and expose, our children to risks and dangers they need not have to worry about, on the basis that because only a small percentage of teens ever do give into temptation and peer pressure, therefore every child ought to be instructed in “safe-sex” education, and ought not be discouraged from engaging in it as long as it is “safe” sex?

In Tennessee, a bill dubbed the “monkey bill” is on its way to becoming law – if Tennessee Governor, Bill Haslam (a Republican) signs it when it reaches his desk. The bill is meant to allow “challenges” and “questions” to current evolutionary teaching. Its supporters hope it will do more to undermine evolution and persuade people to embrace alternatives like creationism and intelligent design (which for the most part are one in the same). The bill’s detractors worry that it is nothing more than a backdoor for religion to enter the public schools.

Evolution, and more to the point, biological evolution – which is defined as a change in the allele (genes) frequently over time – is a fact. (The “theory” part of evolution does more to confuse those who don’t understand it. For those that do understand evolution, and still deny it – like Answers In Genesis – “theory”, and its meaning, is stretched and warped into something altogether sinister.) And while there is debate within the scientific community with regards to individual ideas and constructs about evolution – science and scientists are not in disagreement in accepting evolution, the incredible mounds of evidence and documentation that exist, as being fact.

There ought not be any fear or worry when someone questions the reliability of the evidence for evolution. That ought to be welcomed as an opportunity to explain evolution and why evolution is real. But when anti-evolutionists pontificate about the “complexity” of organisms, and use that as reason enough to reject evolution and postulate intelligent design, that is nothing more than semantics. And what is going to happen to those students who do challenge evolution as fact because they have been brought up to reject it for creationism/intelligent design, who are presented with the facts, the evidence, the documentation, and still reject evolution? How will that be handled?

The assertion by creationists is that evolution cannot be fact because of the “complexity”, and because of the perceived “design” element within nature. They also use words such as “accident”, “mistakes”, “randomness”, and ask, “How can evolution be fact if everything is a result of an “accident”, if everything, including humans, is the result of “random” occurrences and “mistakes”? And then they smile and exclaim, “a-ha!” Well, none of that disproves evolution, and certainly does not overturn the evidence for evolution. What it proves as that evolution can in fact assemble chemical reactions into “complexity” and beauty against however many perceived odds.

But – what if there actually were no “mistakes” within evolution? What if there was not ‘randomness”, or “accidents” or even “complexity” itself within evolution? Guess what? There’s not!

Not in the layman’s terminology, anyway. Without getting too technical, everything is, and everything is a result of, chemical reactions, and chemicals bonding to one another, which in turn transform into other things, and so forth and so on. As for “complexity”, how we define complexity is not how complexity is defined within the parameters of evolution. In other words – there is no actual “complexity” within evolution, merely a string of events (chemical reactions) over time which, for myriad reasons, change their allele (genes) frequency. What is really all that “complex” about any organism? That we may not understand the “how” part of the inner workings of an organism does not make that organism complex, or complexly constructed. What we see now in any organism is not how it originally looked, even those that have remained unchanged for tens of millions of years.

Evolution, and teaching evolution, ought not try to replace God or religion. And while evolution is a fact, that it is in no way disproves God or makes religion obsolete. And it works to anyone’s disadvantage to attempt using evolution as a means in which to push religion aside and push it into that symbolic “ash-heap of history”. We know tens of millions of people accept both evolution and God, and accept that God used evolution and worked through evolution. We can neither prove or disprove that God did, because we cannot test for the supernatural and it is a waste of time attempting to debate what we cannot test for. In any event, that is irrelevant. We can test for evolution and what isnatural.

When anyone challenges evolution, even in public school, teachers ought to stand up to the challenge and meet it head on. Yes, some people will attempt to use creationism and intelligent design as a backdoor to get religion back into the public schools. If they have to be that sneaky about it, then it means their ideas don’t have much, if any, weight, scientific or otherwise, to stand on. Evolution has plenty of weight, plenty of merit, to stand on, regardless of the challenge.

Liberals are up in arms with the The Ryan plan, which passed the House yesterday, but will probably die in the Senate. One of the provisions in the plan that so irks liberals is, in attempting to reduce overall spending by eliminating unnecessary budget items and government programs, it appears that preschool funding is, in part, on the “hit list”.

The House is preparing to pass a Republican budget that would slash funding for Head Start, a federally funded program that provides a wide range of services to a million young children living in poverty and their families. The House Budget Committee, would eliminate slots for about 200,000 children in 2014, according to an analysis by the National Education Association. Over the next decade, the NEA estimates, more than two million children would lose opportunities to attend Head Start centers as a result of the cuts.

Regardless of ones income, preschool teaches children absolutely nothing that they can’t learn at home from their parents. All preschool is, is a babysitting service which taxpayers, through government takeover of education, flip the bill for. There are no complex learning skills being taught to three and four-year olds. Only the alphabet, reading and writing skills, coloring, playtime, nap time, potty training skills, the “love your neighbor” concept without the religious additive, etc. Nothing these small children learn in preschool cannot also be learned at home, where, if preschool is not mandated by local or state law already, parents can save a lot of money that goes into preschool funding and school their own children so they are ready for grade school.

But that is the point of preschool, and why states take a keen interest in getting their political arms around it. It’s all about the extra money they get from forcing parents to enroll their children in unnecessary schooling, like preschool. Now, in an effort to defeat the Ryan budget, and to boost more federal spending for preschool, the MSM, is pushing the idea that low-income families will be harmed if the Ryan plan passes because the cuts made will eliminate “slots” the federal government creates for children of low-income families to enroll in preschool through Head Start and other taxpayer subsidized programs.

Of Head Start, Yasmina Vinci, who heads the National Head Start Association says:

“It’s good not just for kids, it’s good for the whole community.”

Not only do we know this to be absolute nonsense and BS, but the article goes on to prove our case in the next paragraph.

But despite the enthusiasm for Head Start, recent audits have shown the system is far from flawless. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that half of all workers in the field of children’s services and a fifth of preschool teachers lacked high-school diplomas, for example. The survey counted workers for Head Start programs.

So not only is this another worthless government mandated program, but parents who send their children off to preschool to be taught their “ABC’s” and how to color and stay within the lines, but there is more than a fifty percent chance your children are being taught by someone who never graduated high school and probably not only has a hard time reciting their own “ABC’s” but probably cannot color within the lines themselves.

Whether or not parents wants to send their children off to preschool ought to be the parents decision, not government’s. If parents find “value” in preschool – and the only real value preschool has is that it takes the kids off the hands of the parents for a few hours – if that is indeed your idea of “value”, that ought to be up to parents not government. Maybe it’s good for families where both parents must work, but not so good for the children who are now being raised by teachers instead of their parents, which might just be the effect liberals in government had in mind from the beginning.

But unless these kids are learning trigonometry, Constitutional law, or something of a complex nature their own parents could not teach them, that only well-trained and professional educators could teach them (which takes more than the high school diploma more than half of these preschool teachers lack), it is a complete and absolute waste of tax dollars to be sending three and four-year old children to school where they learn nothing of any particular beneficial value, but do learn how bad and how evil our holidays are, like Valentine’s Day – which in some schools is known as “Caring and Kindness Day”, and St. Patrick’s Day, which in some schools is now known as “O’ Green Day”, (this is become of the religious nature of “saint” in both holidays) and other politically correct garbage as they are being baby-sat by people who haven’t a wit’s idea as to what they are doing. Is it any wonder why nap time is such an integral part of preschool. It’s not for the kids – it’s for the teachers.

No child ought to grow up in poverty. But sending kids from low-income families off to preschool, instead of staying with their parents is the wrong approach. It’s the wrong approach regardless of income. Kids will do much better in grade school, and throughout their educational lives, and the rest of their lives, the more interaction they have with their parents early on in their lives, rather than being dumped into a government baby sitting program.

And if preschool was a private endeavor, instead of a public on, if government wasn’t seeing penny of the money being made off these baby sitting services, is there any doubt they would find as many ways as they could to condemn them and shut them down?

If anyone in America still thinks of unions as gallant, chivalrous knights fighting for workers rights against evil employers, will you please stop with such thoughts? Unions now-a-days, as we all ought to know, are themselves the evil, corrupt, self-serving, arrogant thugs who do not like, do not accept, do not condone, do not work well with – competition!

In Culver City California unions are going after parents who volunteer at schools, it is assumed, to help students with their overall education. The fact that they are doing this, and the unions are not getting any kind of cut has irked and annoyed these worthless thugs. Now they are attempting to get their revenge on these parents by forcing them into a union where they will be forced to pay dues, but will not be allowed to have any kid of a voice or opinion in any matters.

Parents are cutting into the territory dominated by these unions and they feel very threatened. These unions will not have anyone, including parents, break up the monopoly they have on public education. But – who are the unions really looking out for here?

What the unions are doing, what the obvious outcome of this insanity will amount to, is that all the many children who now benefit from the tutoring they enjoy (and the student’s own parents must be pleased with) by local volunteers will disappear, and that option for those students will no longer be available. What does that solve?

A wonderful gesture by the parents of Culver City, and all those who have volunteered, is being met with a gesture of another kind by unscrupulous, malevolent unions who loathe the idea that students are in essence receiving a free education. Thus, the unions are doing what they do best – terrorizing the enemy.

Parents have rights in their communities which are being trampled on by the unions that also dwell within. For all those volunteers who give of themselves, freely; for all those students who are grateful for the extra help; for all those teachers who also welcome the volunteers into the schools to take some of the pressure off of them; for every American who is sick and tired of these damned unions coming in and destroying communities and the rights of those communities, and then having the audacity to rip off those same communities through union dues and through the millions of dollars they receive via government from the taxes these communities pay to keep their communities running smoothly – it is time to bust these unions! They are nothing more than con-artists on the city payroll.

Parents in Culver City are outraged over what the unions are trying to do to them, their schools and their children. If the unions get away with it there, isn’t it safe to expect they will move into your community, where parents volunteer to help students with their studies? And once the unions can get away with what they are doing in Culver City, does anyone expect they won’t find something else they can go after they feel is threatening their little “game”? Their little “game” being to monopolize everything they can get their hands on, and then make you, the taxpayer pay for it, and pay into it.

Isn’t about time we finally busted these damned unions wide open? Don’t we owe it to our children to do this before they, unions, bust our children’s hopes for a quality education? Or is the only quality education the one unions decide for them, based on how much money they can scam off of these local communities? When is going too far ever going to register with these thugs? And how far are we willing to let them go before we do take action?

If a woman is an advocate of “free” sex, sex before marriage and sex with multiple partners, what kind of a man is she going to attract other than a man who himself only sees women as sex objects, someone to delight in for a few minutes and whom he never has to see again? What does any woman expect, the lower she lets slip her moral standards, the reaction to a man is going to be who is literally being invited to partake in her, ravage her body and then walk away without having to worry about the consequences?

In other words, men who truly respect women do not have sex with women outside of marriage, and women who want men to respect them don’t flaunt themselves in front of men, for men and to attract men for the sole purpose of sex. Having sex, wanting sex and engaging in sex is human nature. But humans are not the animals they once were, long, long, long ago. Either women need to start respecting themselves, and their own bodies, by keeping their bodies closed until they are married, or women need to shut up and stop whining about how men are “sexist pigs”. Either women want to be degraded, taken advantage of, used, treated like a piece of meat, chewed up and then spit out – or they want to be shown more respect. Men don’t respect “loose” women any more than women respect “loose” men.

Women can’t expect men to be both respectful of them, but also lustful towards them. Women can’t expect men to behave cordially around them, if women themselves are saying “come here” with their eyes and fingers. Women can’t expect men to look away from women the more of themselves they put on full display.

So, how does any man – how is it expected any man will – as a boy who learns in school that having, and experimenting with, sex with girls is a normal part of adolescence and growing up, then grow up to respect women after he has spent his teen years “making friends with” as many teen girls as he could? And girls are being taught the same thing as well, with regards to boys and their bodies. Here, on the one hand, there is a demand from liberal feminists that kids know all about “safe” sex and how to have “safe” sex with one another (because they are going to do it anyway, and public school teachers, rather than take up a position of responsibility reverse course and instill irresponsibility) and on the other hand, liberal feminists are outraged, horrified and “shocked” with the amount of “gambling” going on in a girl’s or woman’s “back room”. It’s a dangerous double standard being played by women.

Teaching kids sex at their age, and sex before marriage is normal, does not instill respect in one another. Whether boys and girls abstain from sex before marriage or not, the longer they hold off into their adulthood, until they are married, the more respect they will have for one another and the fewer unwanted pregnancies and STD’s that will result..

Yet, the same worthless liberal feminists that demand a very thorough teaching of sex education be taught in public schools, where impressionable young boys and girls are being told that having sex at their age is perfectly normal (and won’t be prohibited, interfered with or frowned upon by their teaching staff) are the same hypocritical women that call men “sexist pigs” and decry being degrading by the very men who, as boys, learned in public school – from the dogma of liberal feminism – that it’s perfectly normal for them to view girls and women as sex objects, and to give into their carnal desires.

Ladies and gentlemen – how does taking away the truly greatest power a woman has over a man, namely her virginity, create a respect for women? Liberal feminists are the “Frankenstein” which created the monster in the first place. And now they cannot control their creation. Is anyone surprised?

Liberal feminists, “worried” about the rise, or the prevalence, of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in young girls and women, rather than teach girls and young women to respect their bodies by abstaining from sex, encourage them to “just do it”. But liberal feminists never tell impressionable young girls that so-called “safe” sex can still result in both pregnancy and STD’s. Is it any wonder, then, why these same liberal feminists demand there be free contraception available, and abortions? If young girls and women “loved their bodies” enough to abstain from sex until married Planned Parenthood would be out of business. So would liberal feminism. Both are certainly morally bankrupt.

There is absolutely nothing “prudish” or “backward” about boys and girls, young men and women, waiting to have sex until they are married. Women can’t demand all men stop looking upon them as mere objects if they themselves are the ones giving men the green light to “go”. Women can’t demand men stop their “sexist” attitude towards them if they themselves have the attitude that sex in an unmarried relationship is normal and acceptable. Women can’t blame men for degrading them if they are degrading themselves by being so sexually open with their bodies.

If respect is a “two-way street”, why do so many women allow themselves to travel down that street in the wrong direction? Isn’t it obvious, sooner or later, there will be a collision of a consequential magnitude?

The Arianna Nation “Youth Movement” has a piece written by a young teen, Alton Lu, who wants to know why pro-life Americans would have the audacity to meddle in the affairs of teenagers and all Americans who wish to engage in sex, and demand to be provided free contraception and free abortions – paid for by you, the taxpayer – and what will happen if abortion is ever banned and if the cost of contraception is ever reverted back to the people who want to engage in sex.

Alton Lu is a poster child for what liberals, the Left and Planned Parenthood have managed to do with, and to, our youth in public schools. Alton is sincerely afraid of conservatives and the pro-life movement. And why not? Liberalism has brainwashed Alton into believing contraception and abortion are constitutional rights and that “women’s health” and “reproductive rights” are at stake; that conservatives are actually putting the lives of women in danger by pushing for abortion bans and trying to reverse the contraception mandate that would force Catholic and religious hospitals and institutions to provide women with services that are counter to their religious and moral convictions.

Writes Alton:

“What happens if abortion is no longer legal? What happens if planned parenthoods across the nation are shut down? What happens when students are continually subjected to abstinence-only education and people unable to receive contraception?”

To be fair, Alton legitimately and probably does not know what abortion really is, that it is in fact the killing of an unborn child, and probably has never seen a picture of a fetus in the womb. If Alton still supports abortion, the young teen has truly had a successful brainwashing, and is an example of what can happen, what is happening, to your children in public schools all over America.

If abortion is no longer legal, women will have to give girth to their babies which means more babies will be saved from being killed in, or out of, the womb. Liberals seem to care less about this. Some women will seek the “back-alley abortions” at their own peril. However, that women would, of their own free will, drive themselves to engage in such madness, is no excuse to legalize, and to keep legal, a practice which kills unborn children. More women who do become pregnant will accept the pregnancy and give birth. Let us hope that more and more women’s crisis centers will be in operation, run by actual women who want to help pregnant women and girls during their pregnancy, provide them with the psychological and emotion support they need, and, if they cannot keep the child, help them find a family that can adopt the child after it is born.

Having to sit through abstinence-only education ensures teenagers are receiving the proper sex education they need, need to hear and need to hear from adults and teachers placed in, and with, the responsibility of educating them. Thus, fewer teenagers are brainwashed into believing sex at their age is normal and acceptable.

Fewer teenager would also be engaging in sex, which would reduce the need for contraception, and lower the risks associated with sex (STD’s, etc.), and prevent more pregnancies, unwanted or otherwise, from occurring. It would also reduce the reason for all those “Planned Parenthoods”, therefore they will not be missed.

Abstinence-only prevents pregnancy 100% of the time it is practiced. Sex, even so-called “safe” sex can still lead to pregnancy and sexually related diseases. If someone, including two teenagers, want to engage in sex, they ought not be encouraged by adults, and especially teachers, and they ought not be provided free contraception – paid for by the taxpayer – to make it easier for them to do. Neither should any american. If you want to have sex, fine. Pay for the contraception yourself – and man up, and woman up, by dealing with any of those “consequences” should they arise afterwards.

“This isn’t legislation for the life of the fetus. This isn’t propaganda for the sake of the women’s life. It’s a pathetic attack by narrow field of religious zealots to impose their beliefs upon all women in the United States. Now people wish to use pregnancy and labor as punishment for sex. Policymakers use the politically-correct term “Suffer the consequences.”

Pure Planned Parenthood, liberal feminist BS. Abortion is not just a religious issue, it’s a moral issue that is one of the defining issues of our time. People who engage in sex, if they are “punished” with pregnancy “punish” themselves. Why should the American taxpayer be “punished” by being forced to flip the bill for someone’s irresponsibility?

“Those who do not support abortion and adamantly despise it should be at the front lines, battling for the use of birth control. The best way to stop abortions is to ensure no unwanted fetus is created. Those who do not support abortion should be crying out for true sexual education, not the useless dribble called abstinence-only. There would be no need to save the life of unborn babies if people are able to prevent a pregnancy.

The best way to stop pregnancy, unwanted or otherwise, is to not engage in sex in the first place. We who do not support abortion are at the front lines – to demand an end to abortion and to demand an end to the liberal dogma that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control and an overall part of “women’s health”. It’s not.

Likewise, the best way to “ensure an wanted fetus is not created” is to not engage in sex in the first place. If you want to engage in sex, nobody is trying to take that away from you. However, if you do engage in sex, and become pregnant, having the right to kill your unborn child – and have that child killed at our expense – is not an option, is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

“True sexual education” is abstinence-only, which does empower women more so that “safe” sex. In other words, the more a women tells a man “No” to sex, rather than “yes”, the more the woman can control, and have control, over her own body. The “looser” she is, the less respect any man will have for her and for her body, or want to have.

“I would question those who do not agree with my ideas. A paradox has been created with those who fight to stop both abortions and prevention. If you bring down abortion, prevention must be lifted up. If you bring down prevention, abortion must be lifted up… Or there’s the off-chance these religious zealots can actually convince the people of the United States to not have sex…

Your ideas are not only “questioned” they are being challenged. Alton, you are far too young, and far too ignorant, (a result of the public education you have received, and the liberal brainwashing you have undergone) to fully comprehend just how dangerously wrong, and wrong-headed you are. Your youth may be your salvation. You have time to open your eyes and see why abortion is wrong and how Planned Parenthood, the public school system and liberalism has brainwashed you.

Fighting abortion is not to suppress women, to take away rights, to keep women “barefoot and pregnant” or to take away power. Fighting abortion is to save the lives of unborn children. Either life has value or it hasn’t. Conservative and pro-life Americans have more respect for life, and for your life, than the liberals who brainwashed you have for you.

We don’t want to convince you not to have sex. We do want to convince you not to have sex until you are married. Outside of that – if you do, why should we “suffer the consequences for your mistakes? And – why should the unborn baby you help to create “suffer those consequences” as well?

Atheism as a philosophical point of view is neither unpatriotic nor un-American. However, when atheists seek to have something of a religious nature removed from the public square without the consent or support of the majority, that is unpatriotic and un-American – and unconstitutional. There are times when one person ought not be able to make a difference, like this case in Massachusetts, like so many others involving atheists around the country. Subverting the will of the majority through legal channels misses the mark of rationality, common sense and decency.

In Middlesex Superior Court on Monday, David Niosie, the family’s lawyer asked that the words be taken out of the expression of loyalty to America. According to the attorney, the term “under God” forces the children to engage in an activity that “defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief.”

“Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God,” Niosie went on to tell a FOX25 reporter. “That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”

That an atheist would be bothered with the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is understandable, from a secular outlook. But if one person, or even a small group – a limited minority – of people can legally and constitutionally tread on the rights of the majority, and prevent the majority from having a voice, what is going to happen when/if atheism becomes the majority in a community and one or two religious citizens sue to have some form of religious script, placard, banner, etc. be included because they feel left out and unrepresented? Would atheists then be swayed, out of remembrance for their own struggles, to succumb to that point of view? Probably not.

Why should it be any different when the majority is comprised of religious citizens who support religious influences in their communities, be that influence the Ten Commandments, a religious seal on a city emblem, a Christmas tree, religious Christmas carols sung by school students – or including the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance?

The American Constitution was designed, in part, to protect the minority from certain harms which might be committed by an unruly majority (mob rule) and governments influenced by those unruly majorities. That the minority would even have rights, and rights which were legally protected, was a novel and daring concept in its day. And one of the top reasons why so many millions of people from around the world, since America’s founding, have risked life and death to come to America and to be Americans.

While the Constitution protects the minority from mob rule, it’s hard to accept that civilized citizens, supporting something, anything of a religious nature be included within their community is consistent with mob rule. If the majority wanted atheists fined, jailed or even exiled from the community, that would be unconstitutional, and an infringement on the rights of atheists simply for being atheists. Being an atheist, in other words, is not illegal or unconstitutional. Neither is being religious, or expressing and affirming one’s religious values. And having those religious values reflected and incorporated even in public schools – if the majority of citizens in that community support it – is not mob rule. But it is majority rule. And so long as it is the citizens, and not the government itself, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

If it was government itself demanding “under God” be included, then there would be a legal case. However, if it is the citizens within the community, by a majority, that support the inclusion of the phrase “under God”, then that is constitutionally permissible. Private citizens are not the government. They are neither being paid to represent the government nor are they voting and passing legislation as members of a government body which, having been sworn in and taking an oath to meet the needs of all citizens, including the minority, they are duty bound not to suppress the rights of the minority. And yet, private citizens, through referendums, can both pass and overturn laws enacted by their government – as long as there is a majority supporting the passage or overturning of said law, and so long as the laws the majority wants passed or overturned are not unconstitutional.

Religion in the public schools is not unconstitutional, even from a secular outlook. Separation of church and state is just that. And even if it was anything more, it’s not a part of the Constitution so must not be included in legal discourse and debate. That “congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” in no way prevents religion from being represented, or being legally allowed to remain, within public spaces. When atheists, the ACLU, and other legal and secular entities sue to “prohibit the free exercise thereof”, of religion in public spaces, such as the atheist couple in Massachusetts, and elsewhere around the country, that does prevent religion from being represented in public spaces and as such is unconstitutional and is an infringement on the rights of the majority.

If atheists ever want to be taken seriously, if they ever want to make any real strides and improvements to their positions and points of views, if they ever want their movement to have credibility, if they ever want their numbers to improve and to increase, as a minority forcing its will on the majority through legal insurrection against the majority itself is not the way to do it. Up until now, atheists have used the law to forcibly remove religion and religious relics and influences from the public domain against the will of the majority. Atheists must use the law because they have yet to use their brains and their minds, and the power of intellectual influence and persuasion. The majority, as of now, desires to be religious and to have their religion and their religious values represented and incorporated in their public spaces. Until that changes, atheists must accept it.

It is unpatriotic, un-American and unconstitutional for a minority of citizens to suppress the rights of a majority of citizens (such as the majority’s right to have the phrase “under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance) because the minority rejects the will of the majority. And, as Americans, we must reject the minority’s thrust to push itself, and its views, on the majority.

How does minority rule not, by default, automatically instigate mass chaos? In other words, how can any law ever be passed, and remain intact for very long, if the minority has more power and more rights than the majority and when there is always a minority of citizens which opposes any given law? Wouldn’t every law on the books then be challenged, and thrown out, if even one person objected to it? We would soon realize what a waste of time passing laws is. And a nation without laws cannot long survive.

Are we really going to permit our nation to collapse, and to implode on itself, on the whim, on the weight, of the minority?

This is what happens to our public schools when Democrats and socialists are in control of it. As public schools become, more and more, places of socialist indoctrination, and as that type of education is starting to creep into a child’s life earlier and earlier parents are losing any and all of their parental rights over their own children. Not only are public schools able to force feed our children junk that passes for education, now they can literally force feed our children junk that passes for food, which they deem more healthy than what a mother has packed for her daughter.

This is all happening by design, on purpose and as part of a plan laid out long ago by socialists in league with the Democrat Party, for which Barack Obama is a willing servant. And why we are not doing more to stop it is perhaps the most frustrating and damning aspect to this whole sick and twisted story. It is the reason why this evil, which has permeated our public schools, is there to stay. Or do you think public school officials would give up without a fight?

Ladies and gentlemen – these are your public schools. You pay for them through your property taxes and other forms of taxes. You have a right, and don’t let anyone try to take that right away from you, to demand accountability for your public schools. You certainly have the right to pack your own children’s lunch without his or her school telling you otherwise. You have a right to confront your school directly and tell them to mind their own business. You have the right to tell any member of that school it isn’t any of their business what your children are eating for lunch. And keep in mind that this is the same public school system which would, without your knowledge, provide your daughter with an abortion inducing pill or take her to the nearest abortion clinic.

Public schools want absolute control over your children and your children’s minds. We can either fight them and try to win back public education as it was meant to be, or we can abandon public education altogether and home school our children. Public education, in of itself, is a wonderful concept. But depending on who controls it, public education can be a hazard, a detriment and an impediment to your children the likes of which ignorance and illiteracy could never be.

Having the courage to get involved, be vocal and to not put up with the double talk and the threats from public school officials is imperative to winning back public schools for our children. Principals, school boards and other public school figure heads will try to wear you down, discourage you, use the law to their advantage to make you acquiesce and to beat you into submission. But these are our children we are talking about.

Apathy is what they are counting on. Another school got away with shoving food down a child’s mouth. This must be considered an outrage and an act of war against a public school system that wants to go even further and take even more liberties with your children and your children’s education and upbringing. Either our children are worth that fight or they are not.

It’s not only Barack Obama and the economy that “sucks” right now. Occupy Wall Street protesters “suck” too. So does the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party. And, according to one high school teenager, Emma Sullivan, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sucks.

When Emma made the comment “Sam Brownback Sucks” on her Twitter account during a Youth in Government program where she actually saw Sam Brownback in person, it immediately sent a firestorm of controversy flying through the internet at lightning speed. In no time Brownback’s staff, which continuously monitors Twitter for any remarks about Sam Brownback, were reading Emma’s tweet. It must have knocked them off their chairs. And after they were reseated, composed, and having taken a few deep breaths, they contacted the Youth in Government program, which set into motion what otherwise should have remained irrelevant.

Emma’s wrath has caused great upheaval, turmoil and disruption both to Sam Brownback’s staff and to Emma’s high school principal, Karl R. Krawitz. He has attempted to force Emma into writing an apology letter to Sam Brownback. (Doesn’t it “suck” when a high school principal uses their authority to intimidate students?)

Very suspicious was Krawitz’s demand that Emily include “talking points” in her apology letter to Brownback, and it ought to be investigated by the school board. Demanding an apology letter may be forgiven. However, what Emma writes ought to be for her benefit, not her principal’s.

Call Karl’s abuse of authority “sucking up” to Sam Brownback or “brown-nosing” Brownback, perhaps vying to score political points or political favor down the road. “Remember me, Governer,” we can hear Karl saying. “I was the principal that stood up for you. Now, what’s in it for me?” Emma has, as of now, steadfast refused to write such an apology.

Principals do have a right to enforce certain rules within the school itself. And if Emma had come to school wearing a shirt that said “Sam Brownback sucks”, there may have been grounds to have Emma cover it up or be sent home. However, because Emma made the comment “Sam Brownback sucks” on her own Twitter account, and because it was a mild, non threatening insult, and because, presumably, Brownback is an adult, the “Sam Brownback sucks” comment should have been left to absorb and disappear into the millions of other tweets coming in to Twitter on a daily bases.

American citizens still have freedom of speech. We understand there are some limits; and those of us with moral stamina respect those limits. However, tweeting “Sam Brownback sucks”, while it may be disrespectful, threatens no one. Politicians have been called worse – much worse in the past, and in the distance past. Remember the Sedition Act? Those politicians with a backbone can brush aside insults hurled at them, as more self conscious politicians will easily crumble and fall apart. We don’t yet know which one Sam Brownback is.

This has become another example of politicians making too much of an issue they ought to have left alone. This tweet ought to have been left to float away into Twitter oblivion. That is too late. Sam Brownback needs to respond publicly with his take on Emma’s tweet. Emma’s principal needs to respond publicly with why he feels he is right to coerce Emily into apologizing. Emma needs to respond publicly, aside from her refusal to write an apology to Brownback, and explain what she meant by her “Sam Brownback sucks” Twitter comment.

Indeed, if Sam Brownback has any courage, (which, as a Republican, he damn well ought to) he ought to acknowledge Emma’s right, and the right of all of us, to confront our politicians and denounce them in a non threatening manner. Then, he ought to challenge Emily to explain her remark. In particular, what she feels he is guilty of saying or doing. This might be, after-all, nothing more than a teenager acting without thinking; a teenager tweeting something to her friends in an attempt to impress them. This might very well be an opportunity for Sam Brownback to educate Emma. Without such responses we will never know.

That is a problem. As Americans, we take freedom of speech for granted. We assume we can say anything we want, and often we do. Most of the time what we say leaves not an echo of an imprint. Often, however, remarks cross the line. Whether they do or don’t, there is always someone, some group or organization, looking to take away our freedom, including freedom of speech. Because of Emma’s innocent “Sam Brownback sucks” comment; because a principal has already demanded she apologize; because Sam Brownback has not yet waved it off – anyone seeking to tear apart our freedom of speech will use this incident as another example of why our freedom of speech needs to be more heavily regulated.

Sam Brownback – do the right thing. Publicly wave off the “Sam Brownback sucks” comment or challenge it. Emma – do the right thing. Publicly respond to why you feel your governor “sucks” or admit it was nothing more than a childish attempt to impress your friends. Sam Brownback’s staff – do the right thing. In the future, don’t waste taxpayers money by escalating what is essentially nothing into something more than it was ever meant to be. Principal Karl – do the right thing. Stop abusing your authority as a high school principal and use better judgement to solve problems rather than trying to score political points. And – leave the “talking points” to politicians and political pundits.

And to every politician – leave freedom of speech alone. Unless it is meant to seriously harm or threaten someone, it is still our Constitutional right to say anything we want. Including “Sam Brownback sucks”.

Some types of books ought to banned from public libraries. From public school libraries, without question, some types of books ought to be banned. Books that are filled with obscenities, drug references and graphic sexual content, about children, meant and written for children – by adults. Just as when a teacher betrays the relationship between themselves and their pupils by irresponsibly teaching “safe” sex over abstinence only, so too do they, adults/teachers, betray school children (teens and young adults included) when they place on a library shelf books that are unquestionably questionable.

In Missouri, such a book has been banned. It is called “Hold Still”, and it deals with how a girl copes with the suicide of her best friend. This in itself is not the reason why the book was removed. And if this was all the book was about; if “coping” was all that was at issue, then the book would not have outraged the parents of their fourteen year old daughter who read it. Included are “graphic sex scenes” and what the child’s mother describes as “F-you’s riddled throughout”.

The girl’s father had no problem with the theme of suicide, and how the character dealt with the death of her best friend. Said the father:

The message is about suicide, and I had no problem with that. But if you had the best message in the world put in ‘Playboy,’ you would never get to that message. We felt like it was a questionable book for our daughter.”

Books like “Hold Still” are published every year. Ans it must be said that the authors of these books have a hidden agenda when it comes to writing them. They know that what they write, the drug references, the graphic sex scenes, the obscenities sells! Kids, especially those in the throngs of puberty love to get their hands on such material. Remember when we were kids? We hunted for it too. It is no different with children today. What is different is that the material is becoming more obscene and more prevalent and widespread within public schools and public libraries. And it is being protected and guarded by groups that would seek to undermine a parents authority over their own children. Groups like the ACLU.

Said the ACLU of this controversy:

You clearly can’t remove a book because you disagree with the ideas in them,’ said Doug Bonney, chief counsel and legal director for the local chapter of the ACLU. ‘Clearly, I‘m concerned when a school removes a book that was chosen by the professional library staff for inclusion in the collection and then on the complaint of one family decides to remove the book while it’s being reviewed.’

Indeed. Here you have, in the ACLU, a legal firm whose only real motivation and desire has always been to remove every vestige of Christianity from every corner of America – by legal force if necessary, if Christians won’t “voluntarily” remove themselves and their religious message. And the ACLU, in the case of “Hold Still” is concerned that “on the complaint of one family” in Missouri a book is removed.

The ACLU has moved in with great alacrity and feverish alarm. The audacity that one set of parents would have to want to protect their child from what is essentially garbage, and written by its author to be garbage and nonetheless forced done the throats of children as propaganda. Why couldn’t this author simply write a story about one friend dealing with the suicide of another friend? It’s real. It happens every day in America. Children ought to have a place to turn to when they need to cope with these issues. Books can do that. “Hold Still” could have done that. But not when it is laced and poisoned with obscenities and graphic sex scenes.

What is provocative about the position of the ACLU is their “concern” that on the behest of but a single family, two parents, a book was removed. And although it was not banned entirely, still the ACLU is devilishly worried.

Yet – when it is one atheist complaining about a cross on a water tower, then the ACLU says an entire town must respect the wishes of that one, single, solitary individual atheist. This is where that blatant ACLU hypocrisy enters. The ACLU says that in cases of religion, where but a lone atheist demands a religious symbol be removed from public view, on public land, the wishes of the lone atheist, in the spirit of “separation of church and state” must be granted.

However, the ACLU says, as it has said in this Missouri incident, that if a single family, two parents (one more person than the lone atheist) deem a book too graphic for their child to read, and ask it be removed from the curriculum, this, so says the ACLU, is an infraction on the first amendment right of freedom of speech.

Says the Missouri Association of School Librarians in a statement defending “Hold Still”:

It’s a well-written story about a young adult finding hope despite trying circumstances.

Again, more adults betraying their relationship with children, advocating, encouraging, promoting books that contain drug references, graphic sex and obscenities as a “well written story”. Is it any wonder that more and more children give in to the peer pressure of sex and drugs while still in their teens when they read it in the books their own bloody, worthless excuses for teachers are making them read, or making it easy for them to obtain for reading?

What has the author of this garbage said about her work, and the libraries response?

The more time I get to spend in this glorious and frustrating pursuit of writing novels, the more I appreciate the librarians and teachers who care enough for their students to seek out and provide books that will speak to them.

“Libraries and teachers who care enough for their students” to force feed them trash. To put in their laps books that, for all practical purposes, are propaganda. What kind of teacher “cares” about their students who is willing to place in the hands of a mind not yet fully developed, where puberty and hormonal changes are causing all kinds of emotions to rage within that child, literature that only damages their psyche?

The author of “Hold Still” ought to spend less of her time “in this glorious and frustrating pursuit of writing novels” and more time examining all the damage she is causing to the minds of those children who are reading her books. And she ought to be asked to explain what the point was in adding the obscenities, and graphic sex scenes. What the hell does that have to do with telling a story about coping with the death of a friend who committed suicide?

Just as crosses on water towers ought not be removed, or any religious symbols, because of one lone, pathetic atheist with nothing better to do, complaining it infringes upon his or her non belief, neither ought a book be banned from a public school or public library because it is of a questionable nature to one person or one family. While they certainly have the right to protect their own children, they cannot protect, or speak on behalf of all the children. And if the other families accept their own children reading books containing heavy obscenities and graphic sex scenes, then so be it.

However, this is a perfect opportunity for the community in this school district, and in communities all across America, to come together and decide for themselves what books ought to be allowed in their public facilities, which their taxes are supporting. If a majority of the community wants books such as “Hold Still” to remain in their schools and libraries, that is their right. But, if a community, by in large, opposes such literature, then that also must be honored.

And it goes without saying that the ACLU, in all its hypocrisy, will be right there to sue the school or the library if such a move by any community to remove a book was pursued and enacted. Just as when a community, by in large, would show its support for placing the Ten Commandments in its public schools, the ACLU will be there to stop them. But dare one atheist’s wishes for a cross not be respected – well, the ACLU will be there as well, to sue on their behalf.

Gene Simmons of the rock band KISS is publicly and unabashedly celebrating being a sex addict and all the many “romps” he has had with women over the past 30 odd years. He’s not the only “celebrity” to have expressed their delight in the opposite sex so openly and brag about it. Remember the late, not so great role model, Wilt Chamberlain? Chances are Simmons will not be the last, at least not until our society and our culture begins to demand guttersnipes like Gene Simmons and Wilt Chamberlain keep it in the hanger and just “shut up and sing”, or entertain.

Gene Simmons is a large part of the reason why so many young teenagers give in to peer pressure and engage in sex. They see their favorite singers, actors, entertainers, etc. openly talking about their own experiences, as if it was the greatest thing to happen to them, and young kids naturally want to emulate and imitate them. And although the percentage of teens having sex is declining, Simmons, and others, (and their nonchalant attitude toward sex) remain part of the problem why more children will not abstain from sex.

Sadly, those entertainers who promote the “abstinence until marriage” message are routinely mocked and criticized for not being “realistic”. Abstinence pledges and the rings teens wear to show their solidarity for abstinence are frowned upon more than they are accepted, which puts added pressure on these kids to renounce their abstinence pledge and give into their carnal, hormonal lust.

It’s not only entertainers that are leading kids into having sex way too early. Shockingly, ladies and gentleman, it is their own teachers.

It is altogether fitting and proper to call it an outrage for school districts to allow their teachers to promote this type of indoctrination. And parents not only have a right to know what their children are being taught, they have a right to complain and have it removed from the curriculum. Indeed, all taxpayers, including those who don’t have children in these schools, have a right to voice their displeasure. Teaching anything but abstinence constitutes an absolute betrayal of the teacher-pupil relationship. And for an adult, and a teacher, to instill in a child the attitude of “well, kids are going to have sex anyway, so we might as well teach them how to safely do it” is, without question, absolutely irresponsible. An act of extreme cowardice and depravity by an adult-teacher; a capitulation and surrender in common sense and sensibility; and borderline criminal.

When a teacher, an adult (and that cannot be stressed enough) instructs a child in the “finer arts” of “safe sex” that teacher, that adult, has effectively turned their back on the child and on childhood itself. That some children are bound to engage in sex is all the more reason to teach abstinence, not to give in, not to give up. Children need to be told there is no such thing as safe sex; that safe sex is still harmful, psychologically, emotionally and especially heath wise. Children need to be taught that childhood, including their teen years, is a time for education and learning, not for engaging in adult behavior that is best left until after marriage.

For whatever reason teaching abstinence only seems to be more controversial today than teaching the so called safe sex curriculum despite the fact that teaching safe sex actually encourages kids to have sex, not abstain from it. When an adult, and one in a teaching capacity, is telling a child it is alright to engage in sex at their young age, so long as it is “safe” sex, and coupled with their favorite entertainers reiterating the same disturbing message, is it not more likely a child will ultimately engage in sex, whether it is safe or not, than have the courage and fortitude to abstain from it?

Abstinence works every time it is tried. Not one single pregnancy has ever occurred when abstinence has been practiced. Not one case of STD’s or HIV-AIDS has resulted from abstinence. Why is that?

For Simmons to brag about how many women he has had sex with shows his has a lot of growing up to do. That some teachers would promote the “safe-sex” curriculum shows they have a lot of explaining to do (and ideally they can explain that to the unemployment agency where they go to collect their unemployment insurance). That we as a society allow teachers to promote this garbage to our children and allow our children to be influenced by entertainers like Simmons shows we have a lot of work ahead of us to push back the tide of liberal corruption that has washed into our public school system and is drowning out the quality education our children both need and deserve in order to become productive, responsible adults.

As a parent, or even as an adult, we want role models who will instill in our children common sense values that will help shape and mold their lives in positive ways. Children, after-all, are our future. And they always will be. Gene Simmons deserves the respect of no one. He demands our universal condemnation. Teachers, like-wise, who insist that children be taught safe sex curriculum instead of abstinence only deserve more than our scorn; more than a reprimand or suspension. They deserve to be fired.

Ever since the brutal and despicable murder of Matthew Sheppard in1998, a gay college student from the University of Wyoming, there has been a push in America to ban any speech that might offend, be offensive, or might be construed as anti-gay, in the work place, in the public square and in public schools.

Young Dakota Ary learned this lesson the hardest way possible one day when he uttered that phrase at school in his German class. His teacher happened to overhear the statement. For Dakota’s lack of understanding and compassion toward what has essentially come to be a government protected, and coddled, class of people, he was sent to the principal’s office where justice was done upon him, much to the horror and disbelief of his mother, in the form of a one day in school suspension, plus two days of full suspension. (That was later dropped after an attorney with Liberty Counsel intervened on Dakota’s behalf.)

Dakota is not alone. Many other students have endured such a fate as he, and this type of over reactionary measure awaits anyone, nowadays, who would dare to have an opinion that seeks to upend the liberally controlled public school system. Even within the work place and the public square itself – the epitome of free speech, hate crimes advocates and lawyers are closing in and narrowing the definition of free speech.

Naturally it is one thing entirely for a public school, and a teacher in that public school, to want to enforce rules and standards, and to be actively monitoring what children are saying in his/her classroom, looking out for inappropriate speech or speech that might lead to the physical injury of another person.

But let’s be realistic. If Dakota had been learning about Christianity, say that of the 16th or 17th century, how religious dissension in that era had plunged Europe into many wars and struggles, and after hearing about all the blood shed and death of so many people, had he formed an opinion from that lecture, turned to his class mate and said, “Christianity is wrong”, does anyone really believe that, in today’s public school, Dakota would be punished with school suspension, or punished at all, for his lack of sensitivity toward Christianity?

Check out the “Bong hits for Jesus” t-shirt controversy. Denigrating Christianity in public schools is far more protected, far more commonplace (and more common coming from teachers themselves rather than the students) and upheld by judges as free speech, than a simple, albeit, perhaps unintentionally hurtful remark, as “I think homosexuality is wrong”. It was a private thought Dakota made to a classmate not in any way meant to be hurtful or to promote an agenda. Rather, it was an aside that his teacher overheard and took way out of context.

In this same article it is stated how this very teacher of Dakota’s had once put up a picture of two men kissing on his classroom wall. Very clearly, then, it is Dakota’s teacher, not Dakota himself, who is pushing an agenda. But if it is a pro homosexual agenda then that is protected.

We have seen the vitriol, controversy and the double standard every time a proposal is brought forth to put up the Ten Commandments in a public school. The people who cry bigotry for what they perceive to be anti-gay rhetoric are the same people who are quick to oppose the Ten Commandments in any public school out of a manufactured fear of insensitivity to the other students who might not be Christian and therefore offended or belittled by having to walk past such a religious placard.

But this is just more of the same anti-religious runaround that has wedged itself into the public school system for the passed fifty years.

Public schools should not be places where children are made to feel ashamed of who they are, whether they are gay or Christian. Nor should they be places where children are indoctrinated by their teachers who have ulterior agendas and motives counter to the purpose of public education and to that of their community at large.

Rather, school should be a place where children are properly instructed in facts; historical, scientific, mathematical, grammar, etc. They should also be a place where students are free to form opinions and ideas on their own, even if they might be uncomfortable to others, including homosexuality and religion, so long as these opinions and ideas are of a constructive, not a destructive, nature.

Just as a public school would never demand a student check their homosexuality at the door before they enter, neither should they demand a student check his or her religion at the door.

Right now, in America, as is evidenced in this latest anti-religious fervor involving Dakota Ary, we have a long way yet to go in ensuring that all students have the same rights, not just a select few. And until local communities are better able to take back their own public schools from errant school boards and rogue teachers, gain more control and secure more of a say in these institutions which their property taxes are funding, it will continue to remain an uphill battle.